Well, not dead, but on life support. There are still hundreds of websites covering issues that matter while the faux liberty movement is busy doing battle with their ideological polar opposite—the alt-left, for lack of a better name.

For instance, alt-right journalist Mike Cernovich asked back in May during a White House press conference why the government is not doing anything about “violence by the left.” Cernovich retweeted his original tweet after Rep. Steve Scalise was shot during a baseball game in Virginia this week.

After today’s press briefing was compete, a journalist asked about political violence by the left. Real journalism, finally! pic.twitter.com/EjLuBk3dZR

This is a valid question, of course, and it has a simple answer. Anybody engaged in violence for any reason with the exception of self-defense should be arrested and prosecuted. It doesn’t matter if the person in question is an Antifa goon or a criminal assaulting people and stealing their money.

This common sense approach is of little use to the alt-right as it continues to engage in a running battle with so-called leftists.

The left-right paradigm used by the elite to control the political landscape and make meaningful change impossible came back into play like gangbusters after Trump was elected.

Ever since Trump won the Republican nomination—and even more so since he won the general election—it seems we are right back to the old Republican vs. Democrat, left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative mentality that got us into this mess in the first place. It is to the point that major “patriot” radio talk show hosts are sounding more and more like Republican hacks such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. And so-called patriot websites seem to have lost their constitutional objectivity as well when it comes to Trump.

This has divided and marginalized the real liberty movement.

It’s a trick that seems to work without fail. Recall what the elite did to Ron Paul when he ran for president, or when the Tea Party movement was hijacked and turned it into a cheering section for the Republican party.

The same subterfuge worked for Trump. He talked about ending the wars, putting the squeeze on the Federal Reserve, rolling back NAFTA and other globalist schemes designed to strip mine America, and draining to so-called swamp in Washington. After he was elected, he expanded the wars, said Janet Yellen was doing a heck of a job, and signaled that he wants to “renegotiate” NAFTA, not deep six it. Trump packed his administration with CFR operatives and handed the Treasury over to Goldman Sachs and the bankers. His top economic advisor is a former Goldman Sachs crony.

The alt-right does not talk about this, or if they do it is little more than a rhetorical exercise. Instead, they concentrate on attacking the left. It’s become an obsession. Are leftists more of a threat than the international bankster cartel and the forever war state? Hardly.

The liberty movement was kicked to the curb the day Trump entered the White House. It has slid back into its ghetto after making substantial progress during the reign of Obama and the Democrats. The alt-right dominates the news and social media. The radio talk show host alluded to above has betrayed the liberty movement and sold it down the river.

It was naive to believe a billionaire casino and hotel magnate with zero experience in geopolitics and the byzantine inner workings of the corporate state would drain the swamp. The liberty movement is now in an untenable situation—back Trump and hope against immense odds for the best or step back and pick up where it left off before he was elected.

6 Comments

Joel
June 15, 2017 @
9:53 pm

The liberty movement is dead because it never began because it isn’t well enough organized to compete, and because few truly understand liberty. This is how they mistakenly do things like vote for government, as if it were not completely antithetical to liberty. Those few who get it are usually no more proactive than teaching others a better way, as if the intellectual approach is enough.

The greater probability is that any resemblance of a libertarian social order will have to be borne from a complete dissolution of the current systems, globally, …which is not going to come by any other means than a lot of chaos death and destruction.

Globalism is the natural course of human evolution as we populate integrate and advance technologically. Thus any conversation of what is sociopolitical must be contextualized in those terms. We are basically there now, only separated by borders and assigned competing cultures, if you will.

I see humanity as having four generalized choices;

A – We can learn peaceful coexistence, an ever increasing level of efficiency and advancement.
B- We can continue on current course and speed to eventually leave the progeny of today in complete serfdom, perpetual enslavement to the rulers of governments.
C – We can “break the cage” so to speak, which would basically amount to global chaos and destruction, via war and whatever other means.
D – Or we can be selective of sparing some, and exterminate everyone else.

The answer to A is Global Anarchy/Libertarianism. Libertarianism is THE correct answer to social organization, and can allow for other systems as long as liberty is a base system.
B is completely unacceptable. By no means should we tolerate a system of organization that is wholly premised on coercion slavery death and destruction any longer. It must not continue.
C is a gamble. Whatever chaos that may ensue of our world, the possibilities of the end result are equally chaotic. Who knows how that will turn out.
D is problematic in terms of ethics, for obvious reasons for anyone who has a soul.

Humans are generally too stupid and selfish or brainwashed to figure out A. B and C are unacceptable. Thus the answer is D. Pick a few choice Libertarians and as many children as you can save, then exterminate everyone else. Rebuild correctly.

That is your answer to the human sociopolitical equation. But we do not sit in the position of that level of control. Thus the answer is to revert to C.

“After today’s press briefing was compete, a journalist asked about political violence by the left. Real journalism, finally!”

“This is a valid question, of course, and it has a simple answer. Anybody engaged in violence for any reason with the exception of self-defense should be arrested and prosecuted. It doesn’t matter if the person in question is an Antifa goon or a criminal assaulting people and stealing their money.”

What qualifies as self defense? I define self defense as defense of the self (or extension thereof) against acts of violence. Extensions of the self include things like family and property, tribe/neighborhood. Anything beyond that arguably isn’t the responsibility or right of an individual.

The right to defense is not limited to any means or against any particular classification of a threat. It applies to whatever qualifies as violence against that which you are responsible for or rightful to.

What is violence? The simplest definition is a synonym; Abuse. Violence can come in many forms and does not have to be or include actual physical force. Theft is a form of violence that requires no use of force. Fraud and invasion of privacy are others.

But what is necessary force to defend against a threat? Does defense require the use of force? You can use circumvention as a means of defense. …or whatever creative ideas you can imagine that would resolve a violation issue. So force is not always required as a means of defense.

But when is it necessary? Whenever other means are exhausted, or whenever it is appropriate to the circumstance. Sometimes other means are simply unavailable and there is am immediate need for force, deadly or otherwise.

So how does that relate to someone shooting/killing a Congressman? How is a Congressman a threat to a citizen? Congress people are an arbiter of systematic violence, that’s how.

A congress person is an active management level member of an organization called government. Government is an organization whereby people with a similar philosophy on life hire people to represent them and say magic special words at religious ceremonies and write down how everyone within a claimed geographical territory is supposed to exist, …then organize to send an army of people in funny clothes with weapons anywhere/everywhere in their claimed territory to make anyone/everyone do what the papers say or else be stolen from, caged, assaulted or murdered for noncompliance.

I can be very specific if necessary, but that is violence on many levels. That is systematic violence upon the entire being of whole populations. If I am not mistaken, the appropriate definition for that is terrorism or organized crime. And because it imposed through an army using lethal force, equal or greater deadly force in defense is arguably necessary and very appropriate.

Did the congress person’s organization claim the territory of the geographical location/area where the shooter resides? Did the forced edicts of the congress person and their organization apply to the shooter? Did the shooter agree to the terms and conditions of the congress person’s organization?

If the shooter did in fact reside within the claimed territory of the violent organization, but did not agree, or was not a member, then the right to defense with deadly force is applicable, appropriate and rightful. This can also apply to the shooter’s family as well.

The guy had a right to shoot him or any other member of the criminal terrorist organization called government. I think it is a bit unreasonable to organize to violate so many people and not expect them to respond by defending themselves with equal force.

When I make sound arguments in favor of deadly force in defense of government, and people disagree, that is why your liberty movement is dead, or rather never started. That is what I mean when I say that people don’t know what liberty is.

Liberty is about living rightfully as a human and respecting the rights of others while doing so. It is also about understanding the difference between offense/defense, and what constitutes defense.

A lot of people who call themselves Libertarian are on the offensive side because they cannot see the difference, and thus defend the offenders.